Birdsong v. Tuttle

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Birdsong v. Tuttle

52 Ark. 91

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 15, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 52 Ark. 91 (Birdsong v. Tuttle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Birdsong v. Tuttle, 52 Ark. 91 (Ark. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Exemption: Domicile Garnishment A person temporarily residing in another State, who has a domicile in this State,-may claim his exemption of personal property from sale under process, under Sec. 1, Art. 9, of the Constitution of 1874.

The provision is remedial and should be liberally construed. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Hart, 38 Ark., 112. The word resident should be accepted in its broader sense.

The act of November 27, 1875, gives no right not granted by this clause, and is constitutional. Winter & Co. v. Simpson et al., 42 Ark., 410.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Exemption: Domicile Garnishment A person temporarily residing in another State, who has a domicile in this State,-may claim his exemption of personal property from sale under process, under Sec. 1, Art. 9, of the Constitution of 1874.

The provision is remedial and should be liberally construed. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Hart, 38 Ark., 112. The word resident should be accepted in its broader sense.

The act of November 27, 1875, gives no right not granted by this clause, and is constitutional. Winter & Co. v. Simpson et al., 42 Ark., 410.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 Ark. 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birdsong-v-tuttle-ark-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack